video_review_ui

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that the output is a hot-reloading HTML artifact, but never says whether it writes files into output_dir, overwrites existing ones, starts a server/port, or requires a running render pipeline. For a write tool with zero annotation coverage, that is a substantial gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with the verb front-loaded and no filler, which is structurally fine. However, the terseness crosses into under-specification, and the parenthetical phase code spends characters without adding meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, but the description still omits the essentials for a write tool: what artifact is produced, where in output_dir, and how it relates to the review workflow siblings. One jargon sentence is not enough for a tool with 0% parameter coverage and no annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter, and the description never mentions output_dir at all. The parameter name is fairly self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantics such as expected layout, whether the directory must exist, or what gets created inside it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The verb 'Write' and resource 'human review HTML surface' give a rough sense of the action, but 'P4.3' is an opaque internal phase tag and 'hot-reloading' is unexplained jargon. An agent cannot confidently distinguish this from siblings like video_review_run, video_review_package, or shorts_review without guessing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the many adjacent review tools (video_review_run, video_review_decide, shorts_review). The word 'review' implies a workflow stage, but nothing tells the agent when this step is appropriate or what it produces relative to those siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.